Five pages on from my last post, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the benefits of cohabbing for the Corns.
I'll settle for just one, if that's all there is?
Of course people can keep their Corns any way they choose. But if there are only risks to cohabbing and no benefits, then people need to be aware of that as they make their choice.
you can't force feed people your opinion like it's a fact. plain and simple, that's where you are all wrong. regardless of what someone's opinion is, you can't make them change it.
That's very true. But people are also capable of digging their heels in and refusing to accept that what they're doing has nothing but downsides for their animals. A reasoned debate would be someone giving a list of risks, then someone else coming back with a list of benefits that outweighs the risks. I'm just not seeing this happen.
The risks that have been discussed in this thread are real - they are fact and not opinion. They can and have happened when Corns were cohabbed. They don't happen with
every cohab though. Perhaps this is the only positive balance that can be provided here?
I think it's wrong to suggest that only the "anti" side of the conversation is entrenched and refusing to listen. Choice is good. Making a choice based on unbalanced evidence isn't advisable. We need someone to say why cohabbing is a good thing, other than feeling like they're being told what to do and kicking against it, or being happy to play the odds.
It's possible that "choice" is a moot point when it comes to the welfare of living things in our care. I'm not sure that choosing to do something to an animal that's potentially harmful, is a valid choice. People can
choose to kick their dogs - doesn't make it the right thing to do.